Cited by 37Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsDigital Mental Health Interventions

Telephone‐based CBT and the therapeutic relationship: The views and experiences of IAPT practitioners in a low‐intensity service

Turner, J., Brown, J. C., Carpenter, D. T.·2018·Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing

Abstract

Accessible summary: What is known on the subject: There is a move towards the use of new ways of delivering mental health care, particularly via an increased use of telephone therapies. Although some studies have noted the advantages of telephone‐delivered therapies (e.g., removing access barriers) and reported on equivalent therapeutic effects when compared to face‐to‐face, there are concerns about how telephone‐based therapy adversely affects the therapeutic relationship. What the paper adds to existing knowledge: It contributes new knowledge regarding psychological practitioners’ experience and views about using telephone‐based therapies and how this affects the therapeutic relationship. What are the implications for practice: This paper provides data about the new practitioner workforce (IAPT Psychological Wellbeing Practitioners) and adds to a growing area of research regarding their clinical role. It has relevance for mental health nursing, because health services internationally and across the professions are exploring how telehealth can improve health care. This paper suggests that mental health services need to focus on what type of therapeutic relationship their practice facilitates and on offering transparency to service users. It concludes that telephone work in IAPT can accommodate a working alliance, but not other types of therapeutic relationship, which practitioners and service users hoped for. Services need to focus on what facilitates and inhibits deeper therapeutic closeness and connection. Introduction: Over‐the‐telephone (OTT)‐delivered psychological therapies as an alternative method to face‐to‐face (F2F) are becoming more prevalent in mental health care. Research suggests a range of benefits of OTT use in therapy, but there are growing concerns about its consequences for the therapeutic relationship. This paper presents new knowledge regarding psychological practitioners’ experience and views of OTT work and its potential effects on the therapeutic relationship in the context of the UK's Increasing Access to Psychological Therapy (IAPT) programme. Aim: This paper presents IAPT practitioners’ experiences and views of OTT work and its potential effects on the therapeutic relationship. Methods: Completed questionnaires (exploring OTT versus F2F work) which were distributed to IAPT practitioners revealed a concern about the therapeutic relationship in OTT. To explore this further, nine in‐depth semi‐structured interviews with PWP s were conducted and the findings from this qualitative study are reported here. Results: Practitioners noted OTT use facilitated access and flexibility for service users; however, they expressed some concern over the adverse effect of OTT on the therapeutic relationship. Discussion: Although a working alliance was possible OTT, this research suggests the type of therapeutic relationship formed OTT in a “low contact–high volume” service such as IAPT needs to be better defined. By addressing this, dissonance which might arise between practitioner aims and the aims of IAPT can be reduced. This research also contributes to wider debates regarding mental health care and its provision in the UK. Implications for practice: This paper concludes that mental health services need to focus on what type of therapeutic relationship their practice facilitates and to offer transparency to service users. The findings suggest that telephone work in IAPT can accommodate a working alliance, but not other types of therapeutic relationship, which practitioners and service users hoped for. Services need to offer a more nuanced understanding of the concept of a therapeutic relationship and focus on what facilitates and inhibits deeper therapeutic closeness and connection.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jpm.12440

Cites

93 of 93 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Turner, J., Brown, J. C., & Carpenter, D. T.
Affiliations
University of Southampton (GB)
Corresponding author
Brown, J. C.
Venue
Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-01-30
Volume
25
Issue
5-6
Pages
285-296
ISSN
  • 1351-0126 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2850
OpenAlex
W2768060396
Cited by
37
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 2
FWCI
2.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
telephone-delivered therapy, therapeutic relationship, telemedicine, practitioner experiences
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Humans, Professional-Patient Relations, Telephone, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Telemedicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review